|
|||
Rule 5-1-1: Bizarre state rule interpretation?
I'm curious what rules interpretations are being given for rule 5-1-1 in states other than here in Oregon.
The chairman of the NFHS rules committee is Brad Garrett from Oregon. He as well as the state rules interpreter here are telling us that if ANY down is played with the wrong down on the box (even if all officials agree on the correct down), the down MUST be re-played. No exceptions. The new 2015 Redding guide interprets this rule the same as always. If we notice the box is wrong, we just change it and move on. Our state is saying no. Re-play the down. There are many of us here that feel there is absolutely no language in the rule as written to support doing this. if you call back a touchdown because the box had 3 instead of 2, a coach is going to want to know by what authority you base your decision on. As written, this rule has none in the opinion of many here in our association. So tell me. What are other state rules interpreters telling you all about this rule? Thanks, WC |
|
|||
Quote:
Any other states care to chime in on what you're being told? |
|
|||
Typical of many NFHS rule changes, the new is creating more confusion than clarity.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott "You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith |
|
|||
Would appreciate it if I could get the states that you're from and what your state rules interpreters are saying about this one issue: A down played with the wrong number on the box. Also, even if we're trying to get the box changed by signaling the HL, if it looks like the snap is eminent we are supposed to shut it down if we think it won't be changed in time. Kill the clock even though we all know the box needs to be changed. Needless to say a large number of us think these ideas are silly, and not supported by th rules, NFHS interpretations or case plays.
|
|
|||
They are mixing problems. Their "fix" is for crews who have genuinely lost or gained a down and then realize it, somehow.
The over-eager/inattentive down box operator can be easily corrected and should not be categorized in the same problem. |
|
||||
Quote:
But yours is a good point -- at the subvarsity levels, the box person is usually a kid or a volunteer parent roped in at the last minute. I'm not holding up a play to fix a down box. No chance. We'll get it after the play. |
|
|||
I take the opposite view, Rich. We're not playing a down when the box is wrong. It's too easy to take ten seconds (or less) to fix it right then & there.
|
|
||||
Quote:
No reason to disturb the rhythm of the game, stop the play clock, have the down box changed, and then reset all of it for something that can be fixed after the fact, UNLESS it matters at the time (box says 3rd down, it's 4th down, team doesn't send its punt team out, etc.). |
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New FK rule interpretation? | Ref1973 | Football | 8 | Wed Sep 10, 2014 09:57am |
Rule Interpretation, please. | gdc25 | Softball | 5 | Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:50am |
Need a Rule Interpretation | Blu_IN | Softball | 29 | Mon Nov 07, 2005 06:11pm |
Rule Interpretation? | officialtony | Volleyball | 2 | Mon Oct 18, 2004 01:48pm |
Rule Interpretation Please! | His High Holiness | Baseball | 7 | Tue Jun 17, 2003 01:40pm |